The Home Secretary, Theresa May, told Parliament that control
orders would be "repealed" and replaced by Terrorism
Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs). [1] They will
be introduced by legislation put before Parliament "in the
coming weeks." In the meantime, control orders have been
renewed until December 2011. The key features of TPIMs are:

* They can be imposed if the Home Secretary "has reasonable
grounds to believe that the individual is or has been involved
in terrorism-related activity." This is a higher threshold
than the current test for control orders of "reasonable
suspicion."

* Prior permission must be sought from the High Court before
a TPIM can be imposed, except in urgent cases. Once introduced,
the High Court will then conduct a mandatory review of every
TPIM with the power to quash or revoke the measure.

* A TPIM can be issued for a maximum period of two years and
will only be renewed "if there is new evidence that they
have re-engaged in terrorism-related activities."

* Current 16 hour curfews will be replaced by shorter "overnight
residence requirement" - typically lasting between eight
and 10 hours - that will be enforced by electronic tagging. The
government has said that TPIMs will be more flexible and better
accommodate suspects' work requirements.

* TPIMs will permit greater freedom of communication and association
than control orders. Suspects will be granted limited use of
the internet so long as they disclose all of their passwords.

* Exclusion from specific locations and the prevention of overseas
travel will be "tightly defined." Relocation orders,
which forced control orders recipients to leave the community
in which they live, will be scrapped.

* Breach of the conditions, without reasonable excuse, will be
a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment
(the same as control orders).

* The government will have the power to introduce additional
restrictive measures on suspects under "exception circumstances."
This would include "curfews and further restrictions on
communications, association and movement."

* Unlike control orders, the system of TPIMs will not need to
be reviewed every year.

Nick Clegg told BBC News:

It has changed in fundamental design. Firstly they cannot
be kept in place, these measures, permanently, they are time
limited. Secondly they are subject to complete oversight by a
judge. Thirdly, house arrests, either by very, very draconian
curfews or by simply relocating people to other parts of the
country, go.

[Individuals] will be able to work, they will be able to study,
they will be able to use mobile phones, they will be able to
use the internet in a way that they weren't under the old system,
whilst at all times ensuring that, of course, they can also not
do anything that could do harm to the British people ...

I think people in the party will be very supportive of this package...We
have always said in opposition that we need to rebalance this
very important relationship between liberty and security, that
is what we've done we have to show the British people we'll keep
them safe. [2]

In reality the new system is little more than a watered-down
version of control orders - critics have been quick to label
it "control orders lite". Further, the Lib Dem 2010
general election manifesto did far more than call for a rebalancing
of the relationship "between liberty and security."
It pledged specifically to:

Scrap control orders,
which can use secret evidence to place people under house arrest.

And to:

Make it easier to prosecute
and convict terrorists by allowing intercept evidence in court
and by making greater use of postcharge questioning. [3]

Neither of these commitments has been enacted. Control orders
have been abolished in name alone: amended, not replaced. Crucially,
TPIMs will retain its predecessor's most objectionable characteristic
of operating outside the criminal justice system and bypassing
judicial process. Under the new system individuals will continue
to be punished without charge or trial on the basis of secret
evidence heard in closed courts that they are not permitted to
hear or contest. TPIMs will restrict suspects' civil liberties
less severely than control orders currently do, but the new system
will continue to undermine the presumption of innocence and remains
an inadequate substitute to a fair trial.

This wholly undemocratic process stems from the fact that Britain
is the only country in the common law world to ban the use of
intercept evidence in court, making it incredibly difficult to
prosecute individuals suspected of terrorism offences. May told
Parliament that she intends to publish a written statement regarding
the steps that are being taken towards allowing the use of intercept
evidence in court. However, in the past the UK's security services
have been intransigent in their belief that the practice would
pose an unacceptable risk to national security by revealing important
operational practices. Given the level of deference May has been
accused of showing the security services over control orders
and the difficulty previous governments have had in amending
the practice, there is little cause for optimism. [4] Indeed,
though May claims that the government is intent on finding a
way to prosecute terrorism suspects, the fact that TPIMs will
not need to be reviewed each year - as control orders were -
indicates that these powers are no longer seen as exceptional,
but are here to stay.

For more on control orders
see: Statewatch analysis on the coalition government's commitment
to civil liberties. Original
report (June 2010, pdf) and Six
month update (January 2011, pdf)

&COPY;
Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair
dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on
our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed
only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the
relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing
Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms
and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law